Yes, and most likely all of those business organizations are on record giving fealty to WPATH.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Age Is Acceptable To Identify As The Opposite Sex?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
the British Medical Association is a professional organization just like the American Medical Association.
When considering this topic, it's useful to know which organizations have relied on WPATH. Here's a list of medical or medical-adjacent organizations in the US who are on record citing WPATH:
(Note: it includes the AMA)
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Which does nothing to change the criticisms. And it is telling that your response to the legitimate criticisms is not to address the points made but to and toss some sad shade at legitimate professional organizations.
Wait what? Your argument was that all of these organizations disagree with the Cass report. In response to YOUR claim, I'm simply pointing out that all (or most), of the organizations you quoted are heavily influenced by WPATH. So my response absolutely addresses your criticisms. The critics of the Cass Report that you cited are far from neutral, they're in bed with the organization that promotes the ideas that Cass criticizes.
In other words, organizations that follow WPATH are now trying to cover their butts.
Last edited:
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
A claim you make without any evidence or any evidence that any use of WPATH standards of care somehow negates legitimate criticism.
It doesn't
You basically ignored the criticisms.
Evidence?
So it's better to say nothing at all? Those are your only choices?
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
The option of spending a couple hours going through 30 pages of posts and cutting and citing quotes that i don't beleive for a minute you woudl actually look at is not a great option at all.
Provided in post 583.
Again, organizations like the AMA will - of course - criticize the Cass Report. Because the Cass Report undermines them, doh!
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
You mean the PDF file that someone was so proud of that they just didn't feel the need to take writing credit for?
It's always impressive when no one takes credit for a a bunch of research and writing
Hosted by Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine
(gotta love an organization whose name is an oxymoron)
SEGM is famous for pushing the discredited work of Lisa Littman.
Advocating abusive conversion therapy
Promoting discrimination based legislation such as lobbying against insurance coverage for transgender individuals and against school anti-bullying programs that include bullying of LGBT youth.
SEGM has advocated for sex education materials that identifies LGBT individuals as mentally ill and to be perpetrators of pedophilia and societal violence.
No wonder you are a fan.
But lets look at some of the claims of this no author piece.
What the Journal Of Ethics actually says:
"The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) offers
guidelines to clinicians regarding treatment of people wanting to modify
their bodies for this reason. Prior to these modifications, WPATH advises
that mental health screening is needed and that psychotherapy is
recommended."
and the JoE agrees. So the claim that the JoE is arguing for "body modification on demand:" is just a lie
Which is interesting because the APP policy is that surgical interventions are reserved for adults
the psychiatrists in question Miriam Grossman and Lauren Schwartz are board members of the American College of Pediatrics, a recognized hate group
You were asked to identify just what was wrong or bad about the standards of care of the WPATH and you eventually admitted you had never even looked at the standards of care and refused to read them in any circumstance.
It's not clear that you even skimmed that pdf? It is nothing more than a collection of excerpts and links. In other words it is nothing more than a series of easily falsifiable claims. Correct? No opinions, just black and white claims.
I'm sure you know the value of falsifiable claims vs. opinions!
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
so you admit your link was nothing more than easily falsifiable claims.
I'm guessing from this response that you don't understand the term "falsifiable claims", dang.
Or, you can forget about doing all of that and just answer the question I asked you on post # 527.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
as I recall you didn't like my answer.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, you apparently didn't answer me in #495
What Age Is Acceptable To Identify As The Opposite Sex?
no you really didn't Actually I did. I gave the World Health Organization's definition of gender affirming care and gave the EO from Walz's Governor of Minnesota website and several other links.
www.religiousforums.com
No; you misunderstood me. On post #527 when you answered a question, all I did was ask for clarification; and you responded by saying you aren't gonna play word games
I answered both your posts #494 and #495 on post #507
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That just sounds like conspiracy nonsense. Saying "I'm not a werewolf" is exactly what the werewolf would say, sort of thinking.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Thanks.